This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheSawTooth (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 3 November 2014 (→ERA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:27, 3 November 2014 by TheSawTooth (talk | contribs) (→ERA)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)ERA
Hi, I reverted your sweeping change to this article for a number of reasons, here are a few:
- Blog posts are not suitable sources
- Press releases are not suitable sources
- An article about a company which recycles does not need descriptions of what recycling is or general concepts of recycling - that information is provided via wikilinks
- Despite your edit to the talk page you clearly don't have a NPOV, expanding everything but the controversy section greatly and editing only this one topic is not 'neutral'
- Using weasel words like 'apparently'
- You synthesised refs discussing recycling in general with the ERAs mission statement
- Including needlessly detailed information in contravention of the general manual of style
And so on. I think you should probably avoid editing in this area which you appear to have a close connection with until you're more familiar with Wikipedias rules and guidelines. Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I move to dispute your disruption of my fresh attempt to rewrite. I have no connection with this company whatsoever. I have not used any unnecessary positive language for subject or weasel words as you say. Also I move to dispute your claim of sources I have taken from news papers. I advise you not to remove anything such massive in a manner that does not suit civilized persons and let me finish my editing. You are welcome to ask for corrections!!! --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)